Two Versions Both About Who Was The Bully And Who Was Being Taunted

Two Versions Both About Who Was The Bully And Who Was Being Taunted

www.cnn.com

No, I didn't," Hainstock said. "I didn't plan to hurt nobody."

Sauk County District Attorney Pat Barrett claims Hainstock was a bully himself and angry at Klang because the principal twice suspended him in the days leading up to the shooting on the morning of homecoming.

But Hainstock's attorneys contend he suffers from attention deficit disorder, was abused at home and endured endless teasing at school while Klang and teachers looked the other way.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.madison.com

So here we have two attorneys both saying opposite things about the defendant. One that he was being bullied, and the other that he was the bully. So the question I will ask. Do you think the defendant was the bully or was he the one being bullied?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

"I didn't plan to hurt nobody."

I can tell you this much, if he keeps up with the double negatives like that, he'll end up admitting to something he's innocent of.

The problem with the question, who was the bully, is the assumption that there are always two parties, the right and wrong... who's to say they weren't both right in their own minds, and wrong in their actions?

Johnsky,
I will grant what you say may be true in a philosophical sense. From what I have read on this thus far, I will still stand by one was a bully and one was not.
Still thanks for posting though.

I am in no position to decide but... let me say this, their is a very fine line between bully and bullied.

Bumr,
ok so you say there is a fine line. Could you explain what is the divisions in that fine line?